Hi
I've just wasted the best part of ten quid on a magazine, because it had on the cover disk, Fedora 17.
I need to upgrade my IBM Thinkpad R51 - currently running FC15 - and as I have a 'rural' broadband connection that gives me 80Kbits down on a good day, I thought my luck was in.
So when I get it home, what do I find? It's all 64 bit!
In spite of now having my glasses on, I still can not find anywhere on the magazine or the disk a warning that that said "By the way this disk is useless to you."
I think I should get my money back!
David

If I needed to read the whole magazine in the shop to find that out - I might as well have just pinched a disk off one of the magazines - at least I wouldn't feel so ripped off!
What's wrong with putting the information somewhere where it would be useful to a prospective purchaser?

I just did a Google for Thinkpad R51 and see that it is significantly nearer to 10 years old than LXF is to ten quid.

I am the owner of two 32-bit PCs and one 64-bit. The newest parts of the latter (CPU & MoBo) are about 5 years old and the oldest are about 20 years (keyboard and floppy drive). I am also in a rural area (in the hills of Monmouthshire) with slow connections.

Yet I have consistently argued here that the cover disk should carry 64-bit versions of the heavyweight and professional distros and 32-bit versions of the lighter ones. Seems common sense to me, as older (and thus 32-bit) hardware could have a problem with the newer versions of the heavyweights. LXF now seems to be following this policy. 64-bit PC's have been around for a long time now on the IT timescale.

Fedora I would class as a heavyweight, along with Suse, Debian and Centos. Without researching, I am sure that the LXF cover disk has had lighter RedHat/Fedora-based 32-bit distros in the past and will again.

Unsolved mysteries of the Universe, No 13 :-
How many remakes of Anna Karenina does the World need?

I'm not really complaining about the inclusion of 64bit stuff on the cover disk - or even the lack of 32 bit versions.

My point is that it would have been helpful (and less of a disappointment) if the facts had been presented more obviously.

Say for instance, instead of the printing on the disk cover saying "Fedora 17" it had said "Fedora 17 (64 bit)".

It doubt if that would have been enough extra expense to bankrupt anyone involved in the industry and yet it would have been information that I would have found extremely valuable.

As I don't often buy magazines, I was unaware that the 32/64 bit discussion was under way - now I know about it, I'd like to add that on my part, I really don't care - as long as it's possible to determine what is what without needing to put your glasses on to read the fine print.

Further to Nuke´s enlightened comments I would add that I am seriously upset at the loss of a timely opportunity to do a clean install of Mint 13 - 32 bit.
I have older hardware, and some seriously revered software that I do not wish to lose. I will not use 64-bit, and will not be bullied into so doing.
In front of me I have the last LXF disk containing Ubuntu 12.04 - 32 bit.
Perhaps some one better qualified will comment on why Ubuntu was offerred in 32 and Mint in 64 - bit? I am unwilling to go back to Ubuntu as I feel this would be a retrograde step.
I have subscribed to the mag for 10 years now and one of the compelling reasons was the chance to use the disk to do a clean install. I now have a good broadband connection in Spain and I am wondering if this is the time to cash in the remaining 18 months of my remaining sub and learn how to download over the net.
May we be told the name of the wonk who is responsible for this mess?
David

DM
Thanx for your speedy reply.
I am sorry that you have chosen to impugne Mike´s reputation. I asked for help (by telephone from Spain) whilst recovering from an early stroke, and he not only showed me where to look, but his solution was still on the LXF disk when I last used it to install Mint 12.
Wylie
Thank you again.
Repeated lobbying by just how many per cent of the mag readership?
I think we should be told.
Thank you so much for your links.
I will investigate further.
Best regards
David

I'm one of those people trying to keep abreast of the situation, but with mostly 32-bit hardware.
As I see it, 32-bit installs can be used on 64-bit PCs, but not vice-versa, so the greatest number of people will benefit if 32-bit installs form the majority of magazine CD/DVD distros.
Those who have 64-bit PCs, and want to try the 64-bit distro will most likely have fast broadband, ans so can easily download the 64-bit stuff when they decide that is the distro to use.

Those who run the more bloated distros also pay for the discs. Why should they miss out? I run 64 bit on my PC. I also use 32 bit on my netbook. I recognise that lighter / older spec might need 32 bit, so I lobbied for keeping 32 bit for the likes of puppy and xubuntu, but keep 64 bit for Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint, Debian etc.

It is not our intention to try any bully people into using 64 bit computing. Far from it. Every month now, we include at least one distro designed for older hardware. On the disc in question, this was ArchBang; included in ISO form so it can be used on computers without DVD drives.

At the same time, we don't want people using 64-bit machines to throw away some of their computing power by using software that cannot take full advantage of it.

We're trying to find a balance that will work for everybody. This time we strayed too far into the 64-bit camp. Why? As it happens, Mint wasn't intended to be on the disc, and we'd planned to put another one on in 32 bit form (which one slips my memory). However, as we were putting it together, Mint announced the release, so we changed plans at the last minute. This left us with three major distros to put on each of which, we felt, would be most use on 64-bit machines. In hindsight, this was a mistake.

Going forwards, we will continue to include both 64- and 32-bit, but in the future we'll err more towards 32-bit, and make sure there is always something (usually several things) bootable for 32-biters to try.

For a full range of 32-bit distros, keep an eye out for issue 162 which we're putting together at the moment. This will be a double disc issue, and will include the full Distrowatch top ten (Mint, Ubuntu, Mageia, Fedora, Debian, OpenSUSE, Arch, CentOS, Puppy and PCLinuxOS) plus a few more hand picked ones. They'll be 32-bit so everyone can try them out.

With that all said, I fully take on board the comments about making information about the architecture supported clearer on the DVD cover.

When I complained of this issue (LXF 160 cover disc 16 June) I had two 32 bit machines. One has since blown up and I now have a 62 bit motherboard and processor, so I'm enjoying Mageia and Fedora, but I still want 32 bit versions for my laptop and another oldie I'm collecting tomorrow. Please in future split the bits evenly - and puppies are play things, not for serious work!